ArticleViruses2020
Field Trial Vaccination against Cowpox in Two Alpaca Herds.
Article in Viruses, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Europe, cowpox virus (CPXV) infection in South American camelids occurs as a so-called spill-over infection. Although infected animals generally have a mild form of the disease and survive, cases of fatal generalised CPXV infection have also been described. Prevention by prophylactic vaccination is the only way to protect animals from disease. In the present study, modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) vaccine, which has been successfully used in many animal species, was used in a prime-boost vaccination regimen in two alpaca herds with a history of CPXV infection. The focus of the study was the prevention of further clinical cases, and to determine the safety and immunogenicity of the MVA vaccine in alpacas. The MVA vaccine was well tolerated and safe in the 94 animals vaccinated. An indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) using MVA as an antigen showed that the seroprevalence of antibody after booster vaccination was 81.3% in herd I and 91.7% in herd II. Detectable antibody titres declined to 15.6% in herd I and 45.8% in herd II over a 12-month period after booster vaccination. Animals could be divided into four groups based on individual antibody titres determined over one year: Group 1 consisted of 19.3% of animals that were seropositive until the end of the trial period; Group 2 consisted of 58.0% of animals that were seropositive after booster vaccination, but seronegative one year later; Group 3 consisted of 14.7% of animals that were not seropositive at any time point; and Group 4 consisted of 7.9% of animals that were seropositive after initial immunisation, seronegative six months later, but seropositive or intermediate in IFA one year after immunisation, likely because of natural exposure. In new-born crias born to MVA-vaccinated mares, specific maternal antibodies were detected in 50.0% of animals up to 14 weeks of age. Our results confirm that MVA vaccination is a feasible tool for the prevention of CPXV disease in alpacas. Long-term studies are needed to verify future vaccination regimen in CPXV affected herds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.